ok, so i spent a few years tracking down the nature of concepts to my satisfaction and I think I succeeded, back around May/June or so. I wasn’t shocked that I ended up tripping over “ontological pluralism” as a necessary stopping point. I was glad to find it and see it serves the need. I can reconcile it with monism via a vagueness; blur the ranges and parts can seem simple. Or, alternatively, Intellectually I can reconcile it with monism in moving the “wiring” into uncrackable regions, leaving only the ontological pluralism usable as an “that’s as close as we’re going to get and can only speculate on the rest” Ontological pluralism is workable because our communications systems all lean on it, even when they declare a monism. So to monisms. (Information theory needs its copper wires as it were. Pantheism doesn’t have room for a dualism and by putting dualism “outside” of pantheism, negates a simple substance for there is now at least two: pantheistic “all comes from same” vs the philosophies that have different kinds (the neoplatonic basically but there’s others)) You need groups of different kinds, for ease of use and for emergent properties to have independent if stratified domains. Just don’t lose sight of the mixing zone. There’s a place where oil and water do mix even if it’s strange and you could built a universe out of it as a simple substance but it would unnecessarily complicate in the effort to simplify. Different ways to simplify.

ok, so i spent a few years tracking down the nature of concepts to my satisfaction and I think I succeeded, back around May/June or so.
 
I wasn’t shocked that I ended up tripping over “ontological pluralism” as a necessary stopping point. I was glad to find it and see it serves the need.
 
I can reconcile it with monism via a vagueness; blur the ranges and parts can seem simple. Or, alternatively, Intellectually I can reconcile it with monism in moving the “wiring” into uncrackable regions, leaving only the ontological pluralism usable as an “that’s as close as we’re going to get and can only speculate on the rest”
 
Ontological pluralism is workable because our communications systems all lean on it, even when they declare a monism. So to monisms.
(Information theory needs its copper wires as it were. Pantheism doesn’t have room for a dualism and by putting dualism “outside” of pantheism, negates a simple substance for there is now at least two: pantheistic “all comes from same” vs the philosophies that have different kinds (the neoplatonic basically but there’s others))
 
You need groups of different kinds, for ease of use and for emergent properties to have independent if stratified domains.
 
Just don’t lose sight of the mixing zone. There’s a place where oil and water do mix even if it’s strange and you could built a universe out of it as a simple substance but it would unnecessarily complicate in the effort to simplify. Different ways to simplify.===
I ran a “summarizer” on that and it came up with:“ok, so i spent a few years tracking down the nature of concepts to my satisfaction and I think I succeeded, back around May/June or so.
Just don’t lose sight of the mixing zone.” 12%

Removing the top and bottom, summarizing ended up with:
“I wasn’t shocked that I ended up tripping over “ontological pluralism as a necessary stopping point.
Or, alternatively, Intellectually I can reconcile it with monism in moving the “wiring into uncrackable regions, leaving only the ontological pluralism usable as an “that’s as close as we’re going to get and can only speculate on the rest Ontological pluralism is workable because our communications systems all lean on it, even when they declare a monism.
You need groups of different kinds, for ease of use and for emergent properties to have independent if stratified domains.”
===
 Dewey Decimal Classifier put what I wrote as:
64% Philosophy of Science
31%: Epistemology, causation & Humankind. Accurate enough.

DDC Confidence
501: Philosophy & theory 0.64
120: Epistemology, causation & humankind 0.31

http://act-dl.base-search.net/textclassifier

===
IAB classifier put the text as about:
religion and spirituality_atheism and agnosticism_23_2
97%
IAB taxonomy classifier V2 put it as:
religion and spirituality_hinduism_21_6
99%
==

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× nine = 45

Leave a Reply